Comments on: Unrealistic use cases and personas http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/07/21/unrealistic-use-cases-and-personas/ mind/tech bazar from outer space Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:07:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1 By: Nicolas Nova http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/07/21/unrealistic-use-cases-and-personas/#comment-488417 Nicolas Nova Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:08:12 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/07/21/unrealistic-use-cases-and-personas/#comment-488417 I agree with the general idea of the comment but I see two things: 1) Providing flex-points is partly a way to match up design with people and their practice... as personalization is an important desire and practice. So in this case, how can we state more relevant assumption than matching up design with people's life? (I ask because I don't have the answer) 2) A side-idea that I thought about too: in my conversation with designers and people who create games and other weird stuff, I am often stuck by the confusion between taking people's practices into account AND the methodology to do so And... isn't it the idea of UX research (such what Jan and Younghee does for Nokia or what I am doing in my humble way) to uncover practices, desires, needs, motivation, ideas, etc.? The important question is here is to consider what can be done based on the material provided by these studies. I've been confronted to that question lately and it's hard sometimes to discuss that with people like hardened engineers (who wants to quantify or validate the added value of everything): to them, there should be a clear evaluation of how the material coming from UX research can be employed.. which is wrong IMO because it's rather about inspiring and giving constraints to the idea process (like a funnel) than having a super-formal process that turns pictures of chewing gum on street pavement into mobile phone service with a user-friendly interface. So there is: 1) material gathered in UX research 2) assumptions about should be done eventually 3) material is selected/trimmed/discussed in conjunction with assumptions to find: human needs, desires, motivation to do X or Y, contextual information, etc. I agree with the general idea of the comment but I see two things:

1) Providing flex-points is partly a way to match up design with people and their practice… as personalization is an important desire and practice. So in this case, how can we state more relevant assumption than matching up design with people’s life? (I ask because I don’t have the answer)

2) A side-idea that I thought about too: in my conversation with designers and people who create games and other weird stuff, I am often stuck by the confusion between taking people’s practices into account AND the methodology to do so

And… isn’t it the idea of UX research (such what Jan and Younghee does for Nokia or what I am doing in my humble way) to uncover practices, desires, needs, motivation, ideas, etc.? The important question is here is to consider what can be done based on the material provided by these studies. I’ve been confronted to that question lately and it’s hard sometimes to discuss that with people like hardened engineers (who wants to quantify or validate the added value of everything): to them, there should be a clear evaluation of how the material coming from UX research can be employed.. which is wrong IMO because it’s rather about inspiring and giving constraints to the idea process (like a funnel) than having a super-formal process that turns pictures of chewing gum on street pavement into mobile phone service with a user-friendly interface.

So there is:
1) material gathered in UX research
2) assumptions about should be done eventually
3) material is selected/trimmed/discussed in conjunction with assumptions to find: human needs, desires, motivation to do X or Y, contextual information, etc.

]]> By: Julian Bleecker http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/07/21/unrealistic-use-cases-and-personas/#comment-488334 Julian Bleecker Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:18:25 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/07/21/unrealistic-use-cases-and-personas/#comment-488334 Partly, of course, there is this assumption that design will create objects and experiences that match up with people and their practices. This is the wrong assumption and of course will always inevitably create these "fault lines." If design assumes that it creates a starting point, and also (importantly) accounts for the unknown variances in individuals' practices by providing flex-points for re-crafting those objects and experiences to become more suitable and "personalized." Hardened design that makes too many assumptions about what people want in too specific a way, providing unyielding "sealed" objects or experiences..well..that's what will undoubtedly create these kinds of fractures Adam is talking about. Partly, of course, there is this assumption that design will create objects and experiences that match up with people and their practices. This is the wrong assumption and of course will always inevitably create these “fault lines.” If design assumes that it creates a starting point, and also (importantly) accounts for the unknown variances in individuals’ practices by providing flex-points for re-crafting those objects and experiences to become more suitable and “personalized.” Hardened design that makes too many assumptions about what people want in too specific a way, providing unyielding “sealed” objects or experiences..well..that’s what will undoubtedly create these kinds of fractures Adam is talking about.

]]>